The Karnataka High Court has drawn a firm line between maintaining public order and silencing voices, striking down police notices that barred two speakers from addressing Hindu Sammelana events in Belagavi.
Calling out what it described as arbitrary decision-making, the Court ruled that police authorities cannot curb public speech based on “whims and fancies.” Any restriction on fundamental freedoms, it said, must rest on clear reasoning and tangible material—not vague apprehensions.
The case arose after organisers of the Hindu Sammelana sought permission to hold public gatherings on February 6 and 8, naming Harika Manjunath and Mithun Chakravarthy Devidas Shet (also known as Chakravarthy Sulibeli) as speakers. Weeks before the events, police stepped in with notices preventing the two from participating, citing criminal cases and the possibility of law and order issues.
The organisers pushed back, pointing out that no cases were pending against one speaker and that proceedings involving the other had already been stayed by the High Court. They also highlighted that both speakers had previously addressed similar gatherings without incident.
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, examining the matter, acknowledged that the police do have powers under the Karnataka Police Act to regulate meetings and prevent disorder. But those powers, the Court stressed, are not a free pass to suppress speech. Constitutional guarantees under Article 19 demand restraint, proportionality, and justification.
“Mere registration of cases cannot automatically become a reason to ban a person from speaking at a public event,” the Court observed, underlining that the State must show concrete grounds when it seeks to limit fundamental rights.
The judgment leaned on established constitutional principles, including guidance from the Supreme Court that restrictions on speech must be reasonable, proportionate, and backed by evidence.
With that, the High Court set aside the police notices and directed authorities to reconsider the organisers’ permission requests strictly in accordance with the law—reaffirming that public order cannot be preserved by casually sidelining constitutional freedoms.
